Figment

Now... if they put magnetic mines outside the edge of the map... The longer you are on the edge, the closer those mines get... >.>

dumbo11, on 31 July 2015 - 04:26 PM, said: Actually, those are statistically the best BBs in the game - fewer CVs/minekazes and less over-penetration problems. (except the Myogi - I swear that ship is constructed by welding a bunch of citadels together). However, I'd agree that BBs aren't underpowered - but they can be extremely frustrating/unrewarding... and that's something that could be changed without overpowering them. The BBs at lower tiers suffer the most from DDs and CVs, since they have relative little maneouvrability, lack AA, have poor captain skills, lack range and worst of all, they are ran by bad players resulting in constant whining. Myogi isn't bad. Just needs the upgrades to have the range and AA. It suffers from the volume of fire that other ships have though: only 6 guns. So it needs AP hits really, but other ships like the Wyoming fire more cannons at a time, thus have a higher chance of getting that nice high damage roll.

You don't get it. Have you ever before put PvE elements in a till then pure PvP environment and seen the reaction of the players? Hint: you think people whine about torpedoes so far?

lol. L2P. My battleships (you know, the ones with the least capacity and in the optimum DD levels at tier 3-4): Arkansas Beta (has no AA) - WR: 67%: South Carolina - WR: 67%: Wyoming - WR: 75%: Kawachi - WR: 50% (many draws though): Myogi - WR: 38% (rising, just got out of stock): Now, these are by many considered the WORST BBs: no range, no AA, hard to steer, few cannons. And yes, I played up to and including the Amagi for 70 matches in CBT. They've only been slightly buffed and its opposition nerfed since. BBs need buffs? Are you kidding me? Oh wait, 44% winrate player. :/ Who'd have guessed it's "not a L2P issue"? Hear that comment a lot that you put in a disclaimer, eh? Like in WoT: http://www.noobmeter.com/player/eu/DCT1080/500149572/ Where your performance also speaks to the imagination... Them winrates...

"Hello World."

PvE will not be considered fun if the minefields aren't known.

Also, when you're sailing AWAY from him, he'll have to get closer to make his torps reach you, chances are they start firing cannons out of desperation.

Don't think you get the general gist of what I was saying. :| At all.

Really? If you have to believe some people on these forums, then any bad players are per definition (bad) WoT players? Have you guys never actually played online before? Are you that young and inexperienced that you don't realise that the majority of people is simply not skilled and even... rather dumb? :| Really please, drop the fancy "look at me being pretty and different" attitude which you use to scapegoat bad things on an external party. You're not in the Russian, Venezuelan, Iranian, Greek or North Korean (etc.) governments, so no need to point at the Big Bad Evil Out There. When you're in War Thunder, bad players are said to be "WoT players". You get a good rating, but played WoT too, well, hey, you're the "exception" then. What it actually is, is "simulator vs arcade" arrogance: people who think that playing something that's slightly more sim like makes them more special and smarter. Well actually, no. Played PlanetSide 1. Some veterans believed anyone incoming during PlanetSide 2 were "CoD-Kiddies"/"CS-Kiddies", "BF2-players", etc. or anyone new to PlanetSide 2 is per definition of a lower breed in terms of development ideas and all. Pretending there were no immature and dumb players in PS1 and as if 95% of the ideas put forth in the PS1 development forum wern't the same total crap that was thrown in at PS2. As if we didn't talk about the "zerg" when referring to the mass of fodder running over the PS1's continents. PS2 simply had more players. Thus more village idiots. And of course, since they didn't have PS1 experience, had no idea what good and bad ideas (that were often already tried in PS1) look like. But they too had the brainy ones who quickly identified the same problems as the elite smartypants from PS1 (and yes, there was a group of players that generally had a far better understanding, attitude, ambition and motivation, like in any game I've ever played). Why is that then? Because all games draw from the same pool called humanity. And if it's a popular game played by the same age categories, then you're going to find pretty much the same average cross-sections of society, provided there's a bit of challenge and skill involved (otherwise the smart ones are first to bail). But it doesn't mean they come from any particular other game. Similar, you'll see people comparing games, especially if they are in the same genre. Are they going to compare games they know to this game? Yes. Sure. And they should. Hell, you can easily compare elements from C&C games to this game and have a good point. Don't believe me? Try comparing (mini)map controls for carriers, try comparing UI, try comparing superweapon balance (at most two CV's a side), try faction differences balancing methods. Are the games as a whole different? Yes. Doesn't matter, when you compare two games within a specific context, you can learn a lot from one another, extrapolate or illustrate with analogies people might understand. It doesn't mean they're asking for carbon copies. What you often see though, is people comparing graphics and then saying "no that old game is not modern and thus its mechanics are obsolete / outdated". I'm quite sure things like ammo pick ups in Far Cry games are still the same as they were in the original Wolvenstein 3D (walk over object == pick up). That's how comparing a game mechanic or design element works. Quite often, you'll hear people say: "You compare this to [GAME X] / [PREQUEL GAME Y]? Oh you must just want a carbon copy!" These kind of statements are based on the same prejudices as proclaiming "oh the WoT kiddies are coming in and ruining the atmosphere of the forums". Please, grow up. Accept that the world is filled with dumb people. But by stereotyping a game as source, you also stereotype the smart people along with the degenerates and that's not fair. You also randomly call one bad player better than another, since he's at least not from Rival Game Z. You find these people everywhere in the world, thus also online and in any game you'll play. Preaching over. Dismissed.

Takeda92, on 30 July 2015 - 12:34 PM, said: People should stop the "I'm doing ok in it so it shouldn't get buffed." Hmm. Let's try that statement in reverse: People should stop the "I'm not doing ok in it so it should get buffed." Look, if people can do okay in it, then it's the problem of the people who aren't doing okay in it. For if you're buffing it to the point the people who currently aren't doing okay in it do okay in it thanks to the buffs, then the other people who already did okay, will do great. And those who already did great, will be OP. And you end up nerfing it again due to whining anyway. Ships of the same tier should be more or less on par with one another, be it different playstyles and some playstyles fit some people better than others. They have to be balanced around excellence within the playstyle, not around mediocrity or worse within the playstyle.

It's glitch abusing, but it's not really a huge advantage if you know what they're doing, it's easy to counter (just makes them easier targets since they move in a straight line with just varying speeds). But even though it shouldn't be in the game, there are very few ways you can solve this. Soft-edges are equally abuseable and you can't really turn back with ease. If you make a hard edge with walls of land, you basically create torpedo invulnerability areas, but that might not even be a huge issue as the player would become an easier target from different directions. Either way. It's not something I get worked up about as it just makes the user an easier target for me. I do think there are some things (like keeping aircraft out of the map borders and thus off the minimap) that can easily be fixed by expanding the mini-map edge a bit.

They can indeed cause fires. The chance of it occuring is just incredibly lower than with HE.

Had a 63% winrate on it during CBT. :/ Excellent accurate heavy hitting guns for kiting, good torp range for ambushing. Just don't get hit.

Tier 8 is where the bad region starts in WoWS ever since CBT. It's probably just to make you by some extra ports for lower tiers if you want to grind all lines to tier X.

It's not unfair, it's extremely smart given the game mechanics, why should you not optimise damage over time? Now, the instant repair mechanism is the thing that needs work. One, it shouldn't be instant, at most sped up a bit. Two. Fires and floodings should not be under things like rudder and engine repairs, those should be separated. Three. There shouldn't be such a huge difference between instant fires and over time. Four. DoT should be toned down a bit (in frequency mostly, with the amount of shells hitting, even a small chance of fire is a sure bet: I'm thinking an immunity period on a fire position that's been lit and extinguished in the past minute, think of it as residu foam and water preventing fires from restarting).

You're sure that every match there's an equal amount of DDs on both sides then and this is an entire controlled environment in which all sides are always equal? I suggest you play the game a bit more to notice sometimes there's up to a four number difference per class... Regardless, you should keep in mind that basically there are two DD classes: short range torps and long range torps. The first is affected far more than the latter, so you will see a change. Also, you should realise that the class as a whole will deal less damage on average. It may result in DDs being less able to be decisive, the lower the decisiveness of a class, the lower its winrate (and possibly an increase in the decisiveness of other classes). So with respect to other classes (and in particular specific units), the winrates will start to vary. Please, learn something about statistics before you make claims. Btw, that you're either unwilling or incapable of using the skill properly as a CA is your problem, but has very little to do with it being and having to be present and therefore is not an argument, just subjective attitude which is irrelevant to a debate. Yes you have. You avoid answering my question again. Nice. Stop trolling and answer my question from a gameplay perspective already: "Why is this skill a positive addition to the game that's needed and doesn't needlessly nerf a unit type?" Until you've given a good reason why it SHOULD be added, rather than a historic reason why it COULD be added (and then add why you don't mind), you're just being extremely obstinate (and rude by refusing to answer) yourself. What you've said so far is like saying "well some BBs had torps, so let's just give them to them" (without actually looking at game balance need and balance, which is apparently why they haven't been added as of yet: the BBs HP and dps is balanced purely around cannon firepower between each other). Feel free to clarify yourself any time soon, because you've said nothing but "you failed to grasp me" and then nothing but more historic argument drivel which is no basis for balance. Don't you even realise you're argueing to make this game a simulator because you insist it has to be modelled after capabilities of ships in WWII? You make NO argument for the distance of 2.5km for IN GAME PURPOSES at all! Why 2.5km IN GAME? Why not 2.2km? Why not 2.3km? Why 2.5km? Why in the first place more than other ships? Isn't these ships spotting them 2 km out not ALREADY a reflection of hydroacoustic searches + visual searches? How does and how SHOULD this affect the dps and finishing off capacity of the ships firing them IN GAME? Are the average damage and finishing off capacity too high as is and is this the fault of the class firing or the target not responding? Because THAT is what you need to answer. NOT compare to what ships were capable of in WWII! So again, it seems you failed to comprehend ME, because your post is drivel with regards to game balance and mechanics, it's just an excuse to model something historical (simulate) into an a-historical game in some way and then trying to not make it OP. That is the opposite way of designing class balance: you first look at what is needed, not first at how many gimmicks you can cram in and then see if you can make them work fairly. EDIT: To address your first post again: 0. Argument from history. Already was modelled in game (torps visible at 2km + captain skill). - not an argument to implement it in the first place, because it doesn't address need in game, it refers to real life instead. 1. "it's nerfed from real life, ergo it's fine and praise the lord you get scraps" - not an argument to implement it in the first place and a rather arrogant view at that. 2. Translation: "not everyone uses it, so it's not omni-present" - not an argument to implement it in the first place. 3. Translation: "bad players will be seen anyway, I don't care it affects tier 2-7 US DDs most, so l2p and deal with it". Not realising a lot of DDs get spotted well before their targeting range and thus have to use smoke as cover for an approach and then try to use surprise angles at close range (both of which are thwarted). Smoke screens by these units used to be started on the edge and much more AFTER they have been spotted long before they could fire: i.e. a random unwarranted blanket statement, which IMO can be interpreted as an insult to DD players even. 4. Rather narrow scenario building (which I don't argue with btw), but what I argue with is that you address only one out of at least three scenarios in which it is useful. Hence it's not the only use at all: The second situation is that it's very effective against torpedoes launched from stealth due to screening and scanning for torps when a hostile DD is suspected to be within striking distance. This has the added affect that once a torp has been spotted, people check and go after the torp firing units more quickly (hence perhaps being able to cut you off even as they didn't pass that island or channel yet), have their entire fleet take counter measures 0.5km sooner, their entire fleet goes on high alert for you sooner and thus aims a few seconds earlier at you, etc. In this scenario, you don't apply this skill AFTER you've been torped, you apply it in advance based on your experience of when you MIGHT need it. The skill has two effects after all, you only applied it to a situation with smokescreens. The third scenario is for melee usage: even when a DD has been spotted, a lot of DD users wait with firing till they see the dodge move. Having the skill active allows for better, more accurate close range dodging and knowing which courses are relatively safe, allowing you to dodge torps more accurately and predict enemy movements more accurately. But in the end, NONE of your arguments provide any gameplay reason why this nerf to DDs/buff to CAs is necessary, especially considering the units it affects the most: low tier US DDs.

I suggest you read the patch notes better. Other classes got buffed in maneouvrability to deal with torps better, detection changes to aircraft been changed, type of aircraft cruisers launch has been changed, cruisers got hydroacoustic search skill, HE and AP ammo has seen changes for balance, captain skills been added that help against DDs, etc. I've seen a lot of buffs made to other classes to deal with DDs offensive and stealth qualities (and CV torps) better that are barely influential on "regular" cannonfire combat.

No I don't fail to grasp what you said, you just don't want to realise that an argument from realism is completely irrelevant. They had it, so what? They also didn't have digitalised torpedo indicators. We have those. Should we now implement them on WWII ships retroactively? Because hey, if it's on the one, then it should be on the other right? Your argument is that this is a WWI/II simulator. It is not. Now answer me: why is this NEEDED in game?

I suggest you look up the word "JUST" in a dictionary. Apparently I didn't give it enough emphasis for you. Maybe you can read it better now: Only BAD enemies get hit by torps fired from 7-10km range, but an actual DD player would know that to ensure torp hits on a target that has a bit of a brain will be moving and turning, so you have to give them less chance of dodging, thus firing from closer. The stealth simply provides you the ability to get within range without being actively hunted and hit before you're ready to fire. The surprise is the element of getting within range from a good angle and position. Not so much that you've been spotted or not. However, if you DO fire from outside of visible range, your chances of hitting are decreased now even further on top of the big spread by the end of the range where you can easily pass through the torps as is, let alone if you see them coming sooner. Please think about your answers a bit longer. :/

While especially negatively influencing the performance of the Sampson, Wickes and Clemson, which are already underperforming:

Sigh. If we're going to quote ourselves... b101uk, on 28 July 2015 - 10:38 AM, said: as I said in my first post: And spot IJN torps and hunt after them sooner when you know there's one around giving them less chance to hit anyone in your group and a bigger chance of being hunted in the appropriate direction sooner and thus remaining invisible shorter as the cruiser tracks you down faster without using radar, just knowing you're somewhere out there in that particular direction (by spotting your torps up to several seconds earlier) before you had a chance to escape more than 3km from your firing position assuming torps were dropped at 6.2km. You know, how smart CA users would use and react with this ability. EDIT: and again you fail to address why it is needed. Aggressive DD hunting was already very possible and DDs already don't stand much of a chance against cruisers (provided the captain is capable, of course). Most cruisers also got scout planes that fly about for 6minutes, also scouting for torps and DDs. So why did we NEED this ability ON TOP?

Because I was the Kuma? Please people, realise I complained about it after USING IT. Btw. Used it to get in close and dodge the DD torps, while torping the DDs in question myself...

The point is that you've got a unit class in a game that's completely reliant on these torpedoes, where a detection range of 2km is already more than enough for an alert player (especially with all the torp indicators and even shouting about incoming torpedoes) on top of the amount of units that detect torps for you from further away (like scouting planes and other nearby units) to dodge that they don't need any more help to dodge even more. Please indicate why it is NEEDED in game before having it added. It seems surplus and only aimed at nerfing a DD type that's already been nerfed thoroughly.

Yes, I complain about the "keep adding nerfs and see if the torp-whining will stop at some point" design attitude. This is a symptom of a bigger picture. Have you even counted the amount of nerfs to DDs since 0.3.0 (and any that came before that I'm not aware about)? I'm not a pink goggles DD fanboy either. However, I've seen nerfs to DDs every patch, while winrates of most DD players (with the exception of the Minekaze) were already rather low in comparison to other units, even during CBT. They were marginally better than BBs back then (like about 1%, which given the speed difference had more to do with relocation capacity than overpoweredness, next to most BB players being pure braindead zombies anyway, negatively influencing their overall winrate, yet doing equally well to DDs from the get go). Cruisers already were and are more than capable of dealing with DDs without this consumeable and were already barely affected by torpedoes, so why did they get more capacity to deal with DDs and its primary means of attack and defense? DDs have never been overpowered, yet they've received the most nerfs of everything due to tier 2-4 players who never played a DD whining and whining. Now, I've not stated in any way that this ability is OP. I'm questioning the reasoning of why it has been added in the first place in a situation where it's already not hard to counter DDs that have been nerfed throughout the history of the patch files. Why even MORE counters? Why MORE nerfs? When will the nerfs end? Not this way, because the people who whine now and cause nerfs are the same people who will continue to whine in the future since they can't deal with facing cloak and dagger gameplay. There have been very few people whining that they "can't see into smoke" / "can't counter smoke" (always BB players complaining about getting torped from 2km distance btw) and they've been met with extreme resistance from 95% of the rest of the forum populace. But defensive and offensive smokescreens already don't exist anymore (they're just there to cover retreats now). The whole reason of adding does not seem to be about making the game better, but to placate a small group of existing whiners who hate torpedoes. That is enough to question the validity of adding such a thing on top of all the other nerfs that have been thrown at DDs. Btw, you say that IJN DDs fire from stealth anyway. Yes, bad IJN players do JUST that yes. But in that situation, the screening works especially well, since you see attacks coming sooner. The ability works long enough to ward off 1-2 attacks from tier 2-5 DDs, which is all the difference between a damaged/sunk ship that can be finished off and an alive ship that continues to deal damage for a longer period of time while hunting that DD down.

"In real life" is never an argument for a game. In real life, fires and engines don't get fixed in a second. AA boost is a no brainer consumable as well. Not based on real life either, since they would give everything they got anyway. You seem to completely ignore the screening capacity of spotting torps early whenever you see a DD ready for a run.